beta
Text
1. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) B is simultaneously paid KRW 30,000,000 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 10, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B on the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the terms of KRW 30,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,650,000 (including value-added tax) during the lease period from June 14, 2014 to June 13, 2015.
B. On June 10, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant C on the instant two real estate (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the terms of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 2,640,000 (including value-added tax) during the lease period from June 14, 2014 to June 13, 2015.
C. The Defendants are operating a restaurant in each real estate of this case.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence Nos. 2-1 and 3-1 of Evidence Nos. 2-1 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. As to the main claim
A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion was terminated upon the expiration of the period of each of the instant lease agreements. Since the Defendants prepared a letter of intent to deliver each of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff after the expiration of the period, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid rent and the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent by the completion date of delivery of each of the instant real estate. 2) The Defendants’ assertion by the Defendants demanded the renewal of the contract one month prior to the expiration date of each of the instant lease agreements, extended pursuant to Article 10(4) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”), or subsequently renewed implicitly pursuant to Article 10(4) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”). Even if the Defendants
B. We examine the determination on the request for extradition against Defendant B, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that Defendant B requested the renewal of the contract under Article 10(1) of the Commercial Building Protection Act, and the Plaintiff also the period of Article 10(1) of the Commercial Building Protection Act.